Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close

Letters

Vol. 24 No. 23 · 28 November 2002

Search by issue:

Free Norway

Joanna Griffiths (LRB, 31 October) gives us a vivid picture of Tromsø, the place where Fridtjof Nansen located the Ultima Thule of ancient myth. She may not believe in those myths, but she does seem to subscribe to more recent ones, claiming that Norway ‘gained independence from Sweden in 1905, after centuries of colonisation’. The truth is that Norway’s centuries of colonisation essentially ended in 1814, when Norway became a free country with the most democratic constitution in Europe and acquired its own government, parliament, currency, civil laws, national defence, customs administration and so on. Whatever dependence on Sweden remained disappeared finally in 1905, when Norway chose its own king (from Denmark) and took control of its own foreign policy. Before then, in the Swedish-Norwegian Union of 1814, the two countries shared the same king (originally the French upstart Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, who never bothered to learn Swedish). Their common foreign policy was handled by the Swedish Cabinet (where the Norwegians had a say from 1835 onwards). The Norwegian Left (Venstre) achieved the most in the struggle for democracy, fostering an ultranationalism (norsknorskhet) which couldn’t stand the least encroachment on national sovereignty. In the 1870s, the famous writer B. Bjørnsson was outraged when he discovered that the union flag (a mix of 50 per cent yellow-blue and 50 per cent red-white-blue, generally known as ‘the mish-mash’) in fact favoured Sweden: the blue and yellow were nearer the flagpole and therefore more distinguished in heraldic terms. That said, it is doubtful that Nansen’s Thule theory was ‘a patriot’s gift to the new nation’ as Griffiths maintains. In fact, it’s the other way round: Nansen’s theory should be seen as the fruit of an overheated nationalistic climate in Norway between 1880 and 1905. On the other hand, the political tensions between Sweden and Norway did not seriously impede a close cultural collaboration under the banner of Scandinavianism. Frithiof’s Saga, which Roald Amundsen kept with him on his travels, was written by the Swedish poet Esaias Tegnér, and consequently recited in Swedish by Nansen.

Göran Nilsson
University of Linköping, Sweden

Where have all the books gone?

P.N. Furbank's review of Denton Welch: Writer and Artist (LRB, 17 October) and the subsequent letter from the book's publisher (Letters, 31 October) reminded me that I had requested the book from my library in June. The librarian, having failed to find it in an Internet search of books in print, had given up. At my prompting, she eventually located a copy in the British Library. I then asked about a couple of other recent requests that had elicited no response. An edition of Heart of Darkness together with Conrad's African diaries from Hesperus Press (a new imprint featured on Front Row and advertised in the LRB): no copy in the British Library and a total of only four copies in public libraries in the whole of the British Isles. The Autobiography of Margaret Oliphant (another LRB advertisement), edited by Elisabeth Jay: no copy in the British Library, no copy in any public library.

Buying a book is no easier. The assistant at Ottakars freaked out when I ordered The Illustrated Zuleika Dobson (widely reviewed): Yale University Press! Books are often difficult to get hold of from the States! Fortunately, her computer was able to tell her that the wholesaler (covering the entire UK) had four copies in stock.

Bookshops are full of books I don't want to read and libraries stuffed with videos I don't want to watch. Meanwhile, the many books that I do want to read are increasingly difficult to lay hands on.

Jeffrey Frankland
Storth, Cumbria

The LRB is opening a bookshop in the spring.

Andrew Stilwell
Manager, London Review Bookshop

Who refuted the Arians?

Richard Rorty (LRB, 31 October) says twice that St Augustine was involved in the fight against the Arians. Surely he means St Athanasius. From the Nicean Council in 325 until his death in 373, Athanasius was involved in refuting the Arians. Augustine was not born until 354 and by the time he died in 430, Arianism had not been powerful for decades, although it lingered on in some places. Perhaps Rorty meant to write ‘Manichaeans’, the sect Augustine himself at one time embraced then turned against.

William Gavin
McLean, Virginia

Unfair to Scotland

Pat Kane's apology for Scotland (Letters, 14 November) is the simple inversion of Andrew O'Hagan's dirge. His equation of the Scottish press with a satisfied and sophisticated readership quickly gives the game away. Doesn't he realise that North of the Border we endure one of the most diminished print media in Europe? In this context the rhetorical clouds begin to clear: the key organs of description and diagnosis are out of our hands.

Duncan Forbes
Edinburgh

Unfair to the US

Peter Reavy (Letters, 31 October) complains that the LRB is riding a hobby-horse about Iraq. It should be clear to him that the hobby-horse is actually being ridden by the Bush regime, who never talk about anything else. It's pretty clear that Bush came to power determined to wage war on his pet demon Saddam by hook or by crook. He was briefly distracted by 11 September, but has now allowed al-Qaida to regroup and rearm while he rabbits on daily about Iraq, a secular state that has nothing to do with Islamic extremism: the Baath Party is explicitly anti-clerical and often attacked by the imams. But Iraq is a much easier target to find than al-Qaida. Hence, quite apart from oil, its attraction.

In the same issue, Andrew Glencross confuses everything by lumping together the America of George Marshall (nearly sixty years ago) with that of Perle, Rice and Cheney. The former was a benevolent influence on Europe; the latter is a danger to the world and to itself.

Gerald Moore
Udine, Italy

While it is obviously true, as Derick Schilling reminds us (Letters, 31 October), that ‘Likud does not run Washington,’ it is no less obviously true that between its programme and the aims and actions of American policy-makers there is a community of outlook, temperament and thought. Nor was Anatol Lieven simple-mindedly arguing that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait ‘because of Israel’, as Schilling suggests. But it is the formulation of Schilling’s final remark, with its innuendo of racism and bigotry, that is most revealing. American public opinion – popular and academic-intellectual – has proved unwilling or unable to acquaint itself with the many Islams and the many kinds of Muslim in the world, choosing instead to set up such straw men as Schilling’s ‘Islam’, or the ‘Arabs’, or the ‘Palestinians’. It is precisely the failure ‘to distinguish the suicide bombings from the jihadist attack of 11 September’ – precisely this failure to draw distinctions – that accounts for the unqualified American support of the acts being perpetrated by Israel in the Occupied Territories.

D.M. Roskies
Montreal

While I was disappointed by the cuts made in my response (Letters, 31 October) to Anatol Lieven's discussion of the Bush Administration's position on Iraq, I understand that it is standard practice for publications to shorten letters. What surprised and angered me was that the sentence,

And if many Americans are currently unsympathetic to Palestinian claims because of revulsion over the jihadist massacres in Israel, it's probably because we can't easily distinguish these atrocities from the jihadist massacres of September 11,

was changed, without my approval or knowledge, to:

And if many Americans are currently unsympathetic to Palestinian claims, it's probably because we can't easily distinguish the suicide bombings from the jihadist attack of 11 September.

Derick Schilling
New York

Milton’s Defences

In his account of my biography of Milton, Tom Paulin comments that I have ‘oddly’ called Milton’s Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio Secunda or Second Defence of the English People his ‘least attractive work’ (LRB, 8 August). That would indeed be an odd judgment, had I made it, but my statement in fact refers to Milton’s Pro Se Defensio or Defence of Himself, about whose rank in the scale of Milton’s prose most Miltonists agree.

Barbara Lewalski
Harvard University

At No. 42

Like John Lanchester (LRB, 17 October), I have fallen out of love with professional football. He laments the decline of the game since the introduction of the English Premiership in 1991. However, in English Journey, his account of a tour of the country in 1933, J.B. Priestley describes a game between Notts County and Notts Forest:

Nearly everything possible has been done to spoil this game; the heavy financial interests; the absurd transfer and player selling system; the lack of any birth or residential qualification for the players; the betting and coupon competitions; the absurd publicity given to every feature of it by the Press; the monstrous partisanship of the crowds (with their idiotic cries of ‘play the game Ref’ when any decision against their side is given); but the fact remains that it is not yet spoilt and it has gone out to conquer the world.

Has the game changed or the spectator?

Nick Matthews
Warwick University

Quite Normal

S.A. Skinner comments on the fate of the Ecole Normale on this side of the Channel (Letters, 17 October). Today the Normal College in Bangor forms part of the University College of North Wales, but it was established in 1858 (thus predating the University), three years after Kneller Hall closed, and takes its name from the fact that it was intended to introduce Ecole Normale methods of teacher-training to this country.

Hywel Griffiths
Llansteffan, Carmarthenshire

Fusty Doodlings

Apropos R.B. Russell’s attack on my review of James Methuen-Campbell’s biography of Denton Welch (Letters, 31 October), I was hoping that readers would take the point that at the time of Welch’s intense infatuation with ‘Dr Farley’ he was, as is stressed in A Voice through a Cloud, a very sick man, prone to wildly unbalanced behaviour. This was not his normal style in his relationships. I ought perhaps to have spelled this out.

P.N. Furbank
London NW5

More Mallarmé

Readers who enjoyed the extract from Mallarmé’s Notes for Anatole’s Tomb (LRB, 14 November) may be interested to know that the full French text, with Patrick McGuinness’s parallel translation and essay on the ‘poetry of the undecidable’, will be published as For Anatole’s Tomb by Carcanet in the UK and Routledge in the US next June.

Judith Willson
Carcanet Press, Manchester

Mistake

Anthony Thwaite’s geography is as dubious as Murray Sayle’s if he thinks that ‘Kyushu is about as far south as one can get in Japan’ (Letters, 31 October). Hateruma Island, the southernmost inhabited point in Japan, is about 800 km below the southern tip of Kyushu. The uninhabited Okinotori Island (administratively part of Tokyo), at about 1200 km south of Kyushu, is absolutely as far south as one can get in Japan.

Robin Thompson
London W5

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.